memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
User talk:Duuude Bismarck
Quantum signature Hey, I've had to remove the huge bit of work you added to Quantum signature. (it's not completely gone though, it's now here) It seems like cool work, and I'd absolutely encourage you to engage in that kind of analysis more, but I'm afraid it can't really be here. Our articles are aiming to be thorough, but they are supposed to show just the facts, not the research behind it. That level of detail is really beyond us. Sorry. -- Capricorn (talk) 04:52, August 2, 2018 (UTC) :You understand how maddening it is that you conveniently delete the supporting evidence to my arguments both in Alternate timeline and Quantum signature pages, yes? Would it at least be viable to post them as notable quotes in each given episode? :Te key point made here is that it is not original research, that I am able to back up my claims to the paragraphs you decided to eject from the articles... :Duuude Bismarck (talk) 05:07, August 2, 2018 (UTC) Any good researcher is able to back up their claims, "original research" is not an euphemism for bad research. Your comment is kinda all over the place, but let's see if I can clarify some things. Firstly, you seem to feel targeted, but what is really going on here is that you're a fairly new editor, and don't really seem up to date with the way we do things here. Sorry, but just because anyone can edit, doesn't mean there's no learning curve. We need some rules there so the wiki feels like a coherent whole, and isn't just hyperlinked essays of widely varying quality. The stuff I removed from Quantum signature, which has nothing to do with the changes on the other pages by the way, was because it does not fit with the level of detail presented on the wiki. As far as I saw there were no research issues, that's not the point. Stay as close as possible to what was stated in canon (as to avoid subjectivity creeping in) and then just get on with explaining it. Our pages are built with a very simple formula: explain a topic using information given about it within episodes. That's it. Factual research is something you should just do and then translate in to the point text - don't derail the flow of a page so you can show off your work. Secondly and unrelated, that other info I removed in some places (Talk:Multiverse), it does have some issues. Let's start with the whole timeline thing, which all flows from your claim that in What's Past Is Prologue, Discovery verifies it's back in the main universe using a quantum signature. The episode never states that. What's more, while the Discovery can technically be said to have time traveled, it does not change the past, so there's no altered timeline to fix. So, incorrect fact and a non-issue raised by it, hell yeah that should be removed. Why the first part of that paragraph was removed is more subtle. Basically what you've done there is written down your own conclusions on how time travel seems to work, and then listed a few episodes where we see time travel in practice. That's not how citations work, citations are supposed to back up the specifics of what is claimed. And if you can't give specific citations for your specific claims, then by definition they're either unproven or wrong. -- Capricorn (talk) 06:17, August 2, 2018 (UTC) :I appreciate your feedback, and even before I read this I attempted to go back and revise what was posted to be more directly relevant to the topics. Duuude Bismarck (talk) 06:26, August 2, 2018 (UTC) :Also... the following quote: :STAMETS: "Captain, celestial patterns and subatomic analysis confirm we are in our Alpha Quadrant." :SARU: "Oh."|Paul Stamets and Saru,USS Discovery||What's Past Is Prologue :It is directly referring to the Quantum signature (also referred to as Quantum variance) which was a method of determining on a subatomic level (also referenced by Data in ), which universe you are in. :DATA: I have found the quantum flux in Worf's cellular RNA extends to the subatomic level. It is asynchronous with normal matter. In essence, Captain, Mister Worf does not belong in our universe." :RIKER: "What?" :DATA: "All matter in the universe resonates on a quantum level with a unique signature. That signature is constant. It cannot be changed through any known process. It is the basic foundation of existence." :RIKER: "Are you saying that Worf's quantum signature is different from ours?" :DATA: "Yes, sir. I cannot explain it. It is as if he originates from a different quantum universe.|Data and William Riker,USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D),2370, :...So yes, it is indeed a valid argument without saying 'the exact words', because there is more than enough evidence supporting that is exactly what Stamets was referencing. Duuude Bismarck (talk) 14:44, August 2, 2018 (UTC) No there ain't a valid argument: it's all circumstantial, there's no hard link. Meaning it's s not good enough by our standards. You're holding on to the assumption that "celestial patterns and subatomic analysis" can't possibly refer to anything else then the quantum signature, but that's never made explicitly clear, and frankly that just makes it not good enough by our standards of evidence, even if maybe it's by yours. Beyond that, the way it looks to me you've re-added more or less the exact same points that were previously removed, only worded slightly differently. Here's some specific pointers, and these are basically more or less non-negotiable as this is just the standards by which things are done here: *Don't put quotes in the middle of an article just because they mention something you think should be mentioned. Take the information in them and reword them so they fit an encyclopedic entry. Quotes are basically meant to be used decoratively, to liven up the article by evoking some memorable dialog on the subject. Except in some unique cases, they're not to be used as as information dumps. The quote on Alternate timeline doesn't fit that criteria. Also see MA:QUOTE for more on the subject. *When the situation fundamentally isn't clear, don't start trying to reason out the most likely scenarios, just state that it isn't clear. They may be lot of notes on this wiki, but they're not free fror all soapboxes, they are actually only allowed to exist within very narrow parameters, and laying out your own pet theories falls outside of that. (See also MA:NOT, particularly the lower section) *Don't edit removed content preserved on talk pages (Talk: Quantum signature). I get why you'd want to fix errors in them, but that's archived, it's to be preserved as is. If you want to further refine those ideas, you'll have to go somewhere else with them, sorry. *It's good to try to be relevant to the topic, but some things are just not relevant enough no matter how you word them. You seem dead set on this wiki saying that the alternate timeline is probably different from the Mirror Universe, but among all the maybe 15 or so (guessing) time travel episodes in Star Trek there must be at least ten different time travel rule-sets to be discerned, there's just not much consistency to be found. You can't just cherry pick two of them and make broad claims about life, the universe, and everything. *Finally, here at Memory Alpha we have an admittedly somewhat idiosyncratic indenting system for conversations, different from for example wikipedia, but it works out pretty well for us because usually only a few people are active in any conversation. You don't seem to have picked up on it yet, but it's high time you did. Basically, each new person ariving in a conversation posts their comment one level deeper then the deepest level previously used, and then consistently keeps using that identation within the conversation. For example: User one :User two ::User three User one : User two ::::User four (note in the history of this page how I've actually been fixing your comments for you so they're at the right indentation. A bit of a pain, really, because you're not really using the quote template correctly either which messes things up. (I didn't fix the latter, was quicker to just strip it since it's mostly formatted like it's not in a template anyway)) Ok, that's about all I think. -- Capricorn (talk) 22:36, August 2, 2018 (UTC) Oh, almost forgot, but also while What's Past is Prologue features something that could be described as time travel, it seems a real stretch to say there's an alternate timeline in it, because no timeline is changed. If Discovery had simply spent those months trapped in crystal, there would have been exactly as much change to the timeline. -- Capricorn (talk) 22:45, August 2, 2018 (UTC) :Thats a bundle of feedback, I will attempt to address each point individually as you have. *The quote was placed there because an earlier discussion, wherein someone was assuming what she meant in that quote, when it was not as clear as that. it was much less clear than the subatomic analysis we keep going around in circles about. Due to the fear of misinterpretation, the consensus was to instead just put the quote in, and let readers decide what it means. * I stated the alternate timeline status of 'Kelvin timeline' as unclear because the original statement was an absolute, which was more misleading. It was an effort to give people a medium to further clarify with citations. *Only reason I edited was because I realized I made an episodic typo. sorry. *I have strong reason to believe that the DIS story arc changes long established rules, because of how absolute the rules about "subatomic quantum signatures" are, and how they interact with the forays into MU and time travel for this series. It fundamentally opens the door to an exception to the accepted rules, and I am doing my best to piece together the consistencies and avoid conflating terms. To take a chainsaw to this research rather than a scalpel seams to me to be a disservice to the wiki. I would like to get more feedback to refine it, not start over from scratch each day in an attempt to individually please your talk arguments. *I'm fine with that change to discussions. * See, this is where you and I still disagree. There are established examples as I cited which involve absenteeism via future time travel, and the timeline on each occasion significantly differs. The butterfly effect may be smaller, but a vacation to MU being 2.5 months versus nearly a year is a huge discrepancy, with how crucial the Discovery's intel was to not be 'sitting ducks', as Lorca said. The sudden alteration of the warmap is a strong indicator of the dramatic changes the added 9 months would have caused. Whether via error or (ex) timeship influence, it was still time travel that turned a bad situation far worse. Duuude Bismarck (talk) 23:01, August 2, 2018 (UTC) We're not going around in circles, what's actually happening is you're taking feedback and trying to negotiate a compromise position, halfway between what this wiki is and what you imagine it should be. Grow up. Everyone's got things they feel strongly about, but that doesn't mean you're entitled to force people to listen. And this happens to not meet the standards of this particular place. It might get a good reception elsewhere, but here it don't belong. You have sixty edits under your belt, can't you just grasp that maybe you have a while to go before you'll have completely assimilated how things are done here? I realize this sounds very blunt, but I'm just trying to get through to you here. I'd prefer to stop discussing technical problems with your argument, because it keeps shifting, only your final conclusion remains remarkably constant. Suffice it to say that there is no coherent rule-set that underlies all time travel episodes. That kind of severely limits what we can do in terms of making general claims without directly contradicting lots of stuff. -- Capricorn (talk) 03:39, August 3, 2018 (UTC) :I was honestly trying to discuss with you my reasoning, and rather than make a counterpoint, you dismissed me outright. Is that the point of talk? The wiki says to be bold. You are pressing for me to be timid, but with little to show as a way forward, so I am forced to act with trial and error until you sic someone to block editing entirely. I'm trying to improve, as some of the above should have indicated, but yeah, it seems you arent interested. Prove me wrong. Duuude Bismarck (talk) 03:34, August 4, 2018 (UTC) Yes, in the end I'm not really interested in the factual argument, that is correct. Policy violations are as valid a point for talk as factual issues, and the policy problem dominates here. This site isn't whatever you want it to be, it is an encyclopedia with a pre-defined scope. Specifically it aims to document the facts as correctly as possible, aiming to be a solid source for (among others) those kinds of folks that like you love to analyze the Star Trek universe. That means not straying into anything but the most rudimentary synthesis ourselves. Your brand of more involved analysis is just fine, but it belongs elsewhere. So, here again is the paramount bit of information you seem to keep reading past: Your elaborate analysis, regardless of how correct or interesting it is, fundamentally does not fit this specific project. I've not been offering you ways forward because the only possible one is to go work on something else. You've forced this loop of trial and error yourself by failing to accept advice that this endeavor can never arrive at a place where we can use it no matter how well you refine the subject matter. And in the process you're enjoying yourself about as much as Sisyphus, I suspect. Things don't have to be that way. Just accept the feedback and move on to something else. You don't even have to be timid, just stay within the parameters of the project. Also, never in my life have I sicced anyone to ban anyone, and I've dealt with people much more stubborn then you. But yeah, continuing an endless cycle of trial and error (also known as edit warring) regardless of what others say is more likely to get you banned then to convince everyone else that you were right and they were all wrong. It's the ego-preserving option really: post-ban you'd be able to regale your friends with juicy insider tales about how Memory Alpha isn't nearly as great as its stellar reputation would suggest, how dense those idiots are. What a waste that path would be though. -- Capricorn (talk) 10:28, August 4, 2018 (UTC) :The irony is not lost on me that in spite of your edits to quantum level, you have retained accurate wording relevant to parallels that validates Stamets' subatomic analysis as synonymous with determining the quantum signature. Thanks for conceding the point. Duuude Bismarck (talk) 14:23, August 4, 2018 (UTC) It doesn't validate that. No one ever denied there is some in-universe evidence pointing in that direction, and the paragraph happens to include it (as it has since before you came along), but it remains circumstantial, it can't be said for certain. That's the issue here, we need certainty, we can't state educated guesses as fact. Don't take this to mean that you can happily equate those two now. -- Capricorn (talk) 19:12, August 4, 2018 (UTC)